- (1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. The facts of this case as narrated hereinafter bring into lime light a very depressing feature of our judicial system and show how an unscrupulous citizen aided and abetted by a mercenary lawyer can obstruct the course of justice when the Judicial officers are not conscien tious enough and have no resolution to ex ecute judicial orders.
(2.) THE petitioner is a landlady and respondent No. 6 is her erstwhile tenant who in spite of an order of eviction passed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is putting all sorts of obstacles in the execution of the order of eviction. THE respondent No. 6 is occupying a shop situate at lahsil Line, Ram Nagar, district Nainital, on behalf of the petitioner. THE monthly rent agreed was Rs. 150/ -. THE landlady re quired the shop for her personal need to set up her son in business. She, therefore moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the eviction of the respon dent No. 6. THE said application was moved on 3rd September, 1985, and, after due con test by the respondent No. 6, was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 12th August, 1988. THE respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal to the District Judge that was dismissed on 30th June, 1990. THE respondent No. 6 then came to this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 18073 of 1990 challeng ing the order of eviction and the writ peti tion was dismissed on 14th May, 1991. The landlady petitioner then moved an application for enforcement of the order of eviction. This was done vide application dated 30th May, 1991, registered as execu tion case No. 3 of 1991, and since then be cause of repeated judicial hindrances created by the tenant respondent No. 6, she has not been able to evict the respondent No. 6 to satisfy her need of establishing her son in business. As stated in the petition, the tenant filed an objection in the executing court that was numbered as 6- Ga. He also filed another objection purporting to be under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 1991. Both these objections were rejected by the prescribed authority vide separate order dated 28th August, 1991, copies of which are Annexures '4' and '5' to the writ petition. The judgments copies of which are Annexures '4' and '5', show that both the objections were identical in nature and one of the objections was that the son whose need was set up in the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not the legally adopted son of the landlady.
(3.) EVEN before the aforesaid objections were finally disposed of, the tenant moved another application on 19th August, 1991, before the prescribed authority that there had been a compromise between him and the landlady whereby the landlady agreed to continue him as a tenant on enhanced rent. That application too was rejected vide the aforesaid orders dated 28th August, 1991. The respondent No. 6 filed Civil Revision No. 59 of 1991 before the District Judge, Nainital, against the order passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1991 by which the objec tions purporting to be under Section 47, CPC were dismissed. A copy of the memorandum of revision petition is Annexure '7' to the writ petition. The District Judge granted an ex pane stay order on 5th September, 1991. The landlady then came to this Court challenging the stay order, but the writ petition was dismissed in limine on 24th October, 1991. This Court, however, directed that the revision petition be dis posed of within a period of three months.;